DCOrange

What is Oakland's cap situation next year? Can they just franchise tag him?

I know it's perfectly normal at this point, but it's nuts to think that if he pans out, he'll be paid more on his 5th year option than all 4 years combined.

We shall see! I'm not convinced Edmunds will be an upgrade in Year 1 though he obviously has far, far more potential than Preston. The way I see it (solely for this season compared to last season): QB: downgrade RB: slight downgrade (another year of McCoy aging) and Ivory is only a slight upgrade as the backup IMO) WR: slight upgrade (hopefully a healthy Benjamin outweighs the "loss" of Matthews) O-Line: downgrade D-Line: slight downgrade (obviously he wasn't with the team the whole year, but we essentially swapped out Dareus for Star which is a significant downgrade and improved depth) LBs: ??? As I mentioned, I'm not convinced Edmunds is an upgrade as a rookie; he's just so young and inexperienced still. DBs: downgrade (Gaines > Vontae) As you can see, I'm pretty pessimistic in the short-term, but I'm also very excited about Allen, Edmunds, and the cap space moving forwards. And I think last year's team was roughly a 7 win caliber team, so being worse this upcoming year probably equals a top 5-10 pick IMO.

I'm not sure this is actually the course that the Rams plan on taking, but for awhile, I've been in the boat of "If you have an elite QB, pay him like one. If you have an above-average QB, let him walk and keep trying." There's no sense in paying a QB that's likely just average or above-average like Goff currently is (it's certainly possible he could improve and become worth re-signing) the kind of money it generally takes to keep them IMO; I'd much rather build the rest of the roster and hope to strike gold on a rookie salary scale QB than to lock myself long-term into QB play that probably will never be good enough.

It'll be fun to see if a win causes people to overreact (it almost always does). I think Baltimore is a pretty bad team, so I think it's completely possible that Buffalo wins Week 1 and goes on to have a bad season regardless. I'm not rooting for a bad season by any means; I just think the team is likely worse than it was a year ago, and I don't think last year's team was very good either despite sneaking into the playoffs.

-scratches name off list of free agent WRs for next offseason-

I doubt Buffalo goes for it, but I could logically see the thinking. Buffalo obviously has more money than they're likely to even be able to spend next offseason and a Bell deal could easily be structured in a way that it basically clears him out of the picture just in time to give Allen a huge extension (if he happens to warrant it at that time). Obviously a pursuit of Bell assumes that McCoy is gone. Bell is certainly a very, very special talent that can impact the game in a way most RBs cannot. I'm all for taking advantage of this time period where the Bills are being cheap on the QB position to build out the rest of the roster and lord knows this team needs some weapons.

I know Greg Gabriel is guessing he runs a 4.45-4.50 while Charlie Campbell is guessing a 4.56. NFL Draft Scout casts a much wider net, projecting him anywhere from a 4.44-4.64. I'd guess he's in the 4.55-4.60 range personally; in his highlights you can see him get chased down from behind by a guy that were clocked at a 4.55 at the NFL Combine and he just doesn't look all that fast to me whenever I watch video of him. I'm pretty pessimistic on AJ personally but we'll see; hopefully he continues to improve on his game this year. He catches way too much with his body for my liking/doesn't seem to high-point balls the way I would hope a slower, bigger WR would.

I would guess that her lawyer is saying: 1. She's never technically been a squatter because she's never unlawfully lived somewhere. The lawyer would argue she's always had a legal case for living where she lives. 2. That McCoy has never personally asked her to leave; hence all the references to other people doing things for him (i.e. a non-lawyer submitting legal papers to a minor, McCoy's mother taking things from the house without McCoy ever talking to Cordon, etc.

FTFY.

Cliff notes: Summary of the instagram/facebook posts that we all know about already Statement from Cordon's lawyer where he says the attacker demanded specific items that McCoy had also been requesting/hinting could be stolen Police statement that the attack was not random, but a specifically targeted attack McCoy had filed eviction papers roughly a year ago, but eventually he had the order dismissed as he and Cordon patched things up McCoy then had eviction papers filed again roughly one month ago; Cordon's lawyer says that this was illegally done because the papers were signed by McCoy's friend (who is not allowed to practice law) and the papers were served to a minor: Cordon's son. McCoy was in Miami at the time of the attack, so he could not have personally carried it out (though Cordon has not accused him of this anyways) Cordon claims that McCoy had their security cameras removed and replaced by a new system that only he had access to. McCoy claims that Cordon had the security cameras removed (not sure if this is referring to the new system McCoy had installed or the original system) In the aftermath of the attack, Cordon's son was missing. The window in his bedroom was open with a bedsheet tied and draped down the side of the house. The attacker walked out the front door, so either this window part is completely unrelated (maybe her son snuck out his room the night of the attack and it had nothing to do with anything at all) or this could have potentially been how the intruder got in. I'm guessing it's the former. Cordon says the neighbors have cameras, so they might have a view of the attacker, though she also says he was wearing all black and a mask. Seems to me that the only way they'll be able to identify the attacker is if they have a view of his license plates or if there's some physical evidence at the scene. Police released reports regarding all the other times they were called to the house. In July of 2017, they came to the house to find piles of clothing and stuff on the ground; Cordon had apparently followed McCoy to Vegas and caught him cheating and they were breaking up. At this time, McCoy mentioned that jewelers often loaned them high-value jewelry to wear at events and that Cordon hadn't returned some of the items. He also told Police that he was nervous about being around Cordon because of the climate of domestic abuse in the NFL. At this time, Police informed McCoy of the eviction process that they would have to go through. In April, Police arrived once again after hearing a heated argument over the phone, during which McCoy was trying to remove Cordon's belongings. By the time Police arrived, things had calmed down and they had worked things out between themselves. In June, Police arrived once again after Cordon called to inform them that McCoy was having her possessions removed again. When Police arrived, it turned out that it was McCoy's mom who had shown up to pick some things up for McCoy. The disagreement was regarding some furniture which both McCoy and Cordon viewed as their own personal property. The furniture was left at the house. They were supposed to show up in court on July 10th, but it was delayed to August 14th due to a medical emergency in Cordon's family (I think initial reports said it was her lawyer's family though; not sure which is true)

Yeah, there's just something weird to the window thing. Maybe there's a logical explanation for it but it seems to me that there's a couple possibilities: 1. The attacker had been inside the house already at some point (maybe some sort of contract work where he also scoped things out) and left the son's window cracked to come back later on and used this as both the entry and exit point for the attack. 2. The son is involved in some way. 3. The attacker was able to waltz right in through the front door, but for some reason decided to grab a bed sheet, tie it something, and use that window as his exit point for no real good reason. It just seems very strange to me, but if they have video surveillance of the outside of the house, that should help a lot.

Thinking about it some more, if Cordon got home from her flight around 3ish, maybe the son was staying with a friend and just wasn't there at all the day/night of the attack and her statement simply means that she isn't sure where he is at the moment. I don't know.

This is probably a stretch, but the son missing and the bedsheet being tied out the son's window almost makes me wonder if her own son threw on a mask, robbed her, and then fled out the window. Those two details are new and are pretty weird.

Cordon’s statement specified that it was one male assailant.

This doesn’t sound remotely similar. this case: two attackers, attacked at night, hit one person and tied the others up, didn’t speak to the victims or request anything, simply searched the house for what they could find McCoy case: 1 attacker, attacked in the morning, beat the **** out of Cordon and also hit the cousin, requested specific items from the victims the only similarity is location and that some valuables were taken.

It's not, but even then, it's just her and her cousin's word (assuming that's the witness you're referring to). There doesn't appear to be any physical evidence yet (unless something came out in the past couple hours while I was gone).

They aren't ignoring her system. Their statement is that after Cordon used their security feed to stop McCoy's crew from taking all of her stuff, McCoy had the security cameras removed and installed his own private cameras.

The issue is that people don't always commit crimes because it logically makes sense for them to do so. In fact, it almost never makes logical sense. Just because McCoy doesn't have anything to gain from our perspective doesn't mean he didn't have anything to gain from his. Hell, just because a crime was committed doesn't mean that the perpetrator had anything to gain at all. But assuming that the attacker required having something to gain, the simple answers: 1. McCoy gets what he views as his possessions back. 2. McCoy gets the power/control of the situation/her. 3. McCoy scares her out of going to court/out of the house. And most of all, since McCoy isn't personally carrying out the act, he thinks he can slip by since he technically has an alibi. I am not saying that McCoy is guilty. Obviously Cordon's statement makes it look pretty bad but that's also obviously just her side of the story and the major red flag in it (the attacker requesting the specific items that McCoy wanted) is strictly based on her word and nothing else. We should clearly sit back and see how things develop. My point is simply that crimes aren't always committed because the criminal has something to gain, and even if it doesn't seem like it to us, McCoy may have thought that he had something to gain anyways.

Not sure if this post was addressed but someone on that Lipstick website where this popped up this morning was saying that McCoy specifically wanted a watch that he had given her back.

It's real in the sense that she was apparently attacked and the police were called/it sounds like she went to the hospital. No clue if McCoy is actually involved beyond it occurring at his house (that he apparently has not been in for quite some time). He's accused of hiring the people that beat her (supposedly pistol-whipped her in the head and locked her in the bathroom based on piecing stories together) and he has come out and said the allegations are false and that he has had no direct contact with her in months. The bolded doesn't really relate to the accusations at all, but it seems that he either didn't know the details of the accusations at the time and thought saying this would prove his innocence or he's simply trying to make it sound like he's innocent even though it's not really related.

Do you think it's inaccurate to refer to someone that pays someone else to beat a woman as a woman-beater? I guess that's a matter of opinion but I would guess that her friends feel that he is a woman-beater due to the (from their point of view) fact that he paid someone else to beat her.

Not really. The Instagram post said (I think, just working off my memory now): "I can't believe you (McCoy) did this". The Facebook post said that someone was hired to rob/pistol whip her and then referred to the Instagram post for more details, obviously implying that McCoy was the one that hired people to do it. I suppose you could read the Instagram post and think that saying "I can't believe McCoy did this" means that he personally was the one that beat her, but I think it can pretty easily be brushed off as "did this" meaning that he hired someone.

Obviously there's a lot of other questions that need to be answered, but De Cordon had supposedly returned from London like the night before this incident occurred.

It literally says "...sending dudes to her house" to rob and beat her and then says to go read the instagram post for more details, in which it specifically says it's McCoy. It's not really a difficult puzzle to put together. I would also note that McCoy is saying he hasn't had "any direct contact" with the ex while the actual accusation is that he hired someone to beat her, in which case McCoy could be telling the truth while still being guilty. If McCoy did in fact hire someone as the accusers say, then him not having direct contact with her is a half-truth on McCoy's part.